Tom Bryant_MR wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: ... You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don't extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have.
SpaceMouse wrote: ... You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don't extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have.
... You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don't extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have.
I just want to thank everyone for the inputs to my posting a few weeks ago. I finally finished extending the staging yard as suggested. That extra 23.5 x 10 inches got me thinking about my operating plan and the difference this small space has added to it.
Original
Current
Again, thanks for the inputs.
Regards,
Tom
dehusman wrote: ... One way to fix that would be to make a 4' difference in height between La Grange and Smithville, bring the main at La Grange toward the rear of the benchwork, putting more of the curve there and make the Colorado river bridge more straight across the aisle than at an angle. After crossing the aisle the main would go under the main lines and curve around to connect near the right siding switch at Smithville. That way a MKT train would make the circuit Taylor-La Grange-Smithville-Elgin-Lost Pines-Taylor. That way every train could get to both Taylor and Smithville. Having a grade coming out of the Colorado river valley is entirely prototypical. Dave H.
... One way to fix that would be to make a 4' difference in height between La Grange and Smithville, bring the main at La Grange toward the rear of the benchwork, putting more of the curve there and make the Colorado river bridge more straight across the aisle than at an angle. After crossing the aisle the main would go under the main lines and curve around to connect near the right siding switch at Smithville. That way a MKT train would make the circuit Taylor-La Grange-Smithville-Elgin-Lost Pines-Taylor. That way every train could get to both Taylor and Smithville. Having a grade coming out of the Colorado river valley is entirely prototypical.
Dave H.
Dave, last night I entered the twilight zone of the Dream-Plan-Build saga thinking about this post. It wasn't that I was not aware of your astute observations. It was more that I had reconciled myself to using the Wye to turn the train if needed.
I google'd Smithville a long time ago and the wye in my current plan, albeit in Elgin, was an element I kept from my original plan.
And the interchange, well, let's see. SP crosses MKT in Elgin but then I have MP in Taylor. How to make it all fit ? I admit it, I compromised.
Now, to your suggestion on how to fix the "turn the train once going clockwise". I like it . While I do not have the four inches (my "benchwork man" is threatening revolt ) between La Grange and Smithville, it made me think.
So, consider the red dashed line in the following and let me know what you think. This is something I can add later. Oh yeah. That red line is going under the existing benchwork, using the space over by Elgin to make the turn and end up back in Smithville.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage_DH.pdf
Thanks for spending so much time on this one. I've learned a lot.
Glad we got that settled. LOL.
Prototype or Model Space considerations, Id agree that question got taken care of but good.
Cheers.
"That is the only place in my space for a facility of this size. It is also that way in real life ... or was way back when.
Taylor is a real place with a real yard today - maybe not exactly laid out as depicted but close enough for me.
SmithVille is also a real place and has a yard today ... and way back when ... it had a turntable and a roundhouse.
Elgin did not to my knowledge have engine service facilities."
Tom, you've answered my question. I rather suspected that it would be a case of compromise between being true to the prototype and the reality of space available but I am not familiar with the towns and the rail facilities involved so I had to ask.
Thank You
Ray
And let's not forget the man behind the benchwork....who doesn't want to make anymore changes.....
Don Z
Research; it's not just for geeks.
rayw46 wrote: Tom, I have a question, and it's also for anyone else who is proficient at layout design. It's about something I've noticed in a few other layout plans. It has to do with the location of the Yard in relation to the Engine Facility. Why did you locate the Engine Facility at Smithville so far from the Yard at Taylor rather than locating it at Elgin where the locomotives would have more convenient access to the yard? If this was a decision based on the prototype having the Yard and the Engine Facility located in these areas I can understand it. But otherwise it seems that it's a long run for a light engine to make from the Roundhouse to the Yard and visa versa.Please note that this is a question. It's your layout plan, it looks good and I don't think I'm in a position to critcize it.
Tom, I have a question, and it's also for anyone else who is proficient at layout design. It's about something I've noticed in a few other layout plans. It has to do with the location of the Yard in relation to the Engine Facility. Why did you locate the Engine Facility at Smithville so far from the Yard at Taylor rather than locating it at Elgin where the locomotives would have more convenient access to the yard? If this was a decision based on the prototype having the Yard and the Engine Facility located in these areas I can understand it. But otherwise it seems that it's a long run for a light engine to make from the Roundhouse to the Yard and visa versa.
Please note that this is a question. It's your layout plan, it looks good and I don't think I'm in a position to critcize it.
Rayw46, SafetyValve is correct.
That is the only place in my space for a facility of this size. It is also that way in real life ... or was way back when.
Elgin did not to my knowledge have engine service facilities.
I feel that it's the availible space that dictates the location of the Roundhouse, Turntable etc.
If he had the room against the Taylor Yard Wall, the facilities certainly would have been located very near the yard.
But in the space provided in the plan, the only place to fit any kind of roundhouse is right there in the middle blob.
I personally never thought about trying to run an engine "Light" from one town to the next before it actually goes to work, we used to deadhead "bobtail" all the time without our loads from the house to the trailer before actually putting the load on the 5th wheel.
Looking at it from a operational view, I can understand how the light engine move would make things a little bit interesting.
Bottom line, the availible space dictated that the engine area goes right there into the middle of the room. There is NO room for it anywhere else without trashing the whole plan and re-drawing it.
We could probably attempt to bridge the facilities into Taylor yard by way of the 18" walkway to the right and tie into one of the spare tracks. That will leave Colorado Bridge open for the revenue traffic.
Dave, I'll need until tomorrow to digest your latest. You've obviuosly studied the plan and I thank you for your effort.
csmincemoyer wrote: Tom,What software did you use? I love your trackplan and am not ashamed to say I plan on using elements of your design.Chris
Tom,
What software did you use? I love your trackplan and am not ashamed to say I plan on using elements of your design.
Chris
I use XtrkCad. XtrkCad is free track planning software available at http://www.sillub.com/
Be sure to see the link for the free registration if you choose to use it. And, do the demos available under the Help menu.
Regards and thanks,
From the photos I just want to say it looks great. Have fun with it.
The design of the plan is two laps around the room with a shared portion of the route (La Grange to Elgin). The entire Smithville portion is a large reverse loop, plus the MP/MKT interchange track is another reversing track.
The operational limitation is that if you are going around the loop, once you get your train on the Colorado River bridge, you have to walk around the peninsula to join it again, which will be a concern if walkaround operation is desired.
With the reverse tracks (both the interchange and Smithville loop) both oriented to turn a counterclockwise train, there is no way to turn a train back without backing through the interchange track or around the loop. Every time you bring a train through Smithville you turn it with no way to run it back to Smithville. If the purpose of the roundhouse is to turn steam engines, then with this track arrangement once you run a train in either direction through Smithville you have no route to get it back to Smithville and no way to turn the engine at Taylor. The only way to get a train back to Smithville is to 0-5-0 the engines.
One way to fix that would be to make a 4' difference in height between La Grange and Smithville, bring the main at La Grange toward the rear of the benchwork, putting more of the curve there and make the Colorado river bridge more straight across the aisle than at an angle. After crossing the aisle the main would go under the main lines and curve around to connect near the right siding switch at Smithville. That way a MKT train would make the circuit Taylor-La Grange-Smithville-Elgin-Lost Pines-Taylor. That way every train could get to both Taylor and Smithville. Having a grade coming out of the Colorado river valley is entirely prototypical.
You could put a switch in right off the left end of the Colorado River Bridge and make the MP connection. That would keep the MP loop. I would put a siding in there with one switch by the Colorado River bridge and the other towards the Elgin diamond and use that as the MP staging track.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dustin and SafetyValve, thanks. The squares are 1 foot.
SpaceMouse wrote: Tom Bryant_MR wrote: Something like this ?http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage.pdfThanks, That's the general idea, but I think you might have to do some juggling to make it work out. Ideally, you would have one track that sides up the fuel, sand, and coal. Or two tracks--the one you have now for sand and another between the coal and fuel.If you think about it, it makes more sense to have the coal and fuel on two separate outside tracks and the sand in between, as both fuel types need sand.
Tom Bryant_MR wrote: Something like this ?http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage.pdfThanks,
Something like this ?
http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage.pdf
Thanks,
That's the general idea, but I think you might have to do some juggling to make it work out. Ideally, you would have one track that sides up the fuel, sand, and coal. Or two tracks--the one you have now for sand and another between the coal and fuel.
If you think about it, it makes more sense to have the coal and fuel on two separate outside tracks and the sand in between, as both fuel types need sand.
Good points. Since no cork/track is laid ... nothing lost but something to gain.
I have nothing to add to this plan except to say "well done".
I see the use of labels, markings, props etc indicates a careful consideration for all the space, not just track. That is a mark of a great planning.
Are those squares one or two feet each?
I just re-reviewed your plan with the changes and it looks really good. The increased staging looks good too. I think overall this plan is ready to finish!
Keep posting as you go... you have a really nicely laid out plan here.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
dehusman wrote: The MP didn't go to Elgin, they interchanged at Taylor and Waco (well actually the IGN, International Great Northern did). The MP crossed the MKT at Taylor and had trackage rights over the MKT from Taylor to Waco (and then to Ft Worth). Just for your information, you can say the interchange was anyplace you want.
Dave, your knowledge is impecable . I've taken a bit of artistic license here. Googling the Taylor area shows a track connecting the MP yard running east-west (now UP) with the old MKT running north-south. I've made this so for 1952.
They actually crosses the SP at Elgin.
Agreed. MKT crosses SP in Elgin. Again, I take a liberty for now. I love some of the SP locos etc. and even have some of the rolling stock.
Also the MP had a yard at Taylor, but not the MKT, the MKT had yards at Smithville and Bellmead (Waco). They didn't even have a siding at Taylor, just an interlocking and interchange track with the MP.
I began the yard with the intention of it being MoPAC. But, after a trip down HWY 95 and visiting Smithville, I fell in love with the Katy.
You might want to consider making Taylor "Bellmead" and Elgin "Taylor" and then you have everything in the right spot.
Not a bad idea. I'll have to muse over that for a little. Thanks for the input.
I don't understand what the roundhouse is doing at Smithville? There is not yard there to require a roundhouse. it looks like what you are doing is just putting one there as a display case for your engine collections. Thats a large chunk of your layout's square footage you have devoted to a display case.
Well, again, my original plan did not have a roundhouse. At a train show meet in RoundRock I met a certain individual who was an engineer on the old Katy and now runs on the UP, who told me there were three roundhouses in Smithville over the years. Again, I claim artistic license.
My challenge, and I suspect the same for others, is that there are facets that I just love and would not be happy without - my druthers. And, on the other hand, while I do not want a totally freelanced layout, I'm forced to make compromises between prototypical and my reality
You've supplied me with a lot of food for thought. And, BTW, I would love that timetable!
SpaceMouse wrote: Tom Bryant_MR wrote: Which engine facility are you speaking of ... the small one in the Taylor yard ... or ?Thanks,The one by the TT. You have multiple tracks and a large roundhouse implying lots of traffic. If you had another track in that area to park tankers and gondolas for the sand, coal and fuel, it's another desitnation on the layout.
Tom Bryant_MR wrote: Which engine facility are you speaking of ... the small one in the Taylor yard ... or ?Thanks,
Which engine facility are you speaking of ... the small one in the Taylor yard ... or ?
The one by the TT. You have multiple tracks and a large roundhouse implying lots of traffic. If you had another track in that area to park tankers and gondolas for the sand, coal and fuel, it's another desitnation on the layout.
selector wrote: I feel that your inspection pit, leading to the turntable at centre, is too far away from the adjacent track, thus forcing it to curve too much to meet the turntable. If you can squash all that track downward toward the ones south of them, your approach to the TT needn't possibly preclude its use by larger steamers. Just a thought.I am unsure if this is what you are asking...your photo above seems to suggest you are interested in feedback about what it closest to the camera. So, I have not looked at any other parts of your layout...very elegant in the picture, by the way. Nice work!
I feel that your inspection pit, leading to the turntable at centre, is too far away from the adjacent track, thus forcing it to curve too much to meet the turntable. If you can squash all that track downward toward the ones south of them, your approach to the TT needn't possibly preclude its use by larger steamers. Just a thought.
I am unsure if this is what you are asking...your photo above seems to suggest you are interested in feedback about what it closest to the camera. So, I have not looked at any other parts of your layout...very elegant in the picture, by the way. Nice work!
Selector, thanks for the input and comments. That area, as you can tell from this picture has no cork yet. I'm not sure yet but I think the coaling tower strattles two tracks with a third on one side of it ... one track for getting coal in ... one for dumping directly underneath ... and the last on one side to service locos on the outside track.
I tightened up that trackage a bit in the new plan above.
Thank again,
Dustin wrote: ... Your yard lead looks like it is long enough and the yard flows nicely and you can switch cars in the yard without fouling the main.
... Your yard lead looks like it is long enough and the yard flows nicely and you can switch cars in the yard without fouling the main.
That reminds me. Give credit where credit is due. My yard lead is as long as it is because of a tip I received back in fall of 2005 on that very yard plan from a certain Mr Mouse.
SpaceMouse wrote: ... You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don't extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have. As it is your layout already over-powers your staging anything you gain back will be appreciated later.In addition to the 12" Dustin got you on the ladder track, I would extend them all the way to where you have the yard limit sign. You do need all the room you can get on those ladders.
... You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don't extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have. As it is your layout already over-powers your staging anything you gain back will be appreciated later.
In addition to the 12" Dustin got you on the ladder track, I would extend them all the way to where you have the yard limit sign. You do need all the room you can get on those ladders.
Good point about extending the yard tracks to the limit sign - done. On staging, right again. Here is a picture of the area and I have easily another 24", so I will extend that out to match the plan update above. 24 inches at approximately 6" per car puts another 4 cars on each track.
SpaceMouse, I do not understand your comment:
A small point, but given the large size of your engine facility area, you might provide a resupply (coal, fuel, sand) track and get a little more ops out of the area.
Dustin wrote: The only thing I noticed is one piece of redundant trackage. There is a run-around track that parallels your classification ladder. Most folks plan that in to serve as a caboose track, but you already have made allowances for one.
The only thing I noticed is one piece of redundant trackage. There is a run-around track that parallels your classification ladder. Most folks plan that in to serve as a caboose track, but you already have made allowances for one.
Thanks Dustin. The layout is in my garage. This is what I was looking for. I've been looking at that yard design for several months and it never dawned on me.
New plan - http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage.pdf
Thanks again,
The MP didn't go to Elgin, they interchanged at Taylor and Waco (well actually the IGN, International Great Northern did). The MP crossed the MKT at Taylor and had trackage rights over the MKT from Taylor to Waco (and then to Ft Worth). Just for your information, you can say the interchange was anyplace you want.
I would lose the caboose track and make that the left hand lead of the yard. Actually you could put a short curve coming out of the left yard switch, then atart the left hand ladder over there with a series of right hand switches. That would let you tie the departure track into Arrival #2 to the left of the scissors crossover. use the runaround on the switch liead as the caboose track and extend the yard tracks a foot or two to the right.
At Smithville there was a junction where the lines from Ft Worth split into the line from Houston and the line from San Antonio. If you could figure out a way to incorporate a return loop at Smithville you could simulate that with a train going around counterclockwise would be going to San Antonio (in) or from Houston (out) and a train going counterclockwise would be going to Houston (in) or from San Antonio (out).
If I can ever figure out how to post a picture I will post a copy of the timetable page for this territory.
Good call Dustin. That addresses one of the two comments I was going to make. Both of them being short yard tracks. Both where Dustin mentions and in staging. You have room out toward your door. I would extend staging as far as you can (but don't extend the whole shelf, just enough for the tracks you have. As it is your layout already over-powers your staging anything you gain back will be appreciated later.
First of all I think your layout looks great! Very clean looking room etc!
The yard design is done well. Your yard lead looks like it is long enough and the yard flows nicely and you can switch cars in the yard without fouling the main.
The track I am talking about in case I'm not being clear enough is the second track in from the layout edge directly above/left to the number 1 in the pink circle on your diagram.
I would remove it as you have lots of runaround tracks in the yard. By taking it out, you can now take your classification ladder and slide it to the right thus making your classification tracks almost 12" longer.
Alternatively, you could keep it in and call it a RIP track (repair-in-place) track and then essentially have created another industry to switch.
I think your plan is great so keep posting!